Anthony Barkett
Professor Lamy
IR341: Foreign Policy
December 1, 2010
Lebanon: The Puzzle Piece to the crisis in the Middle East
Can you imagine four people being killed over the issue of an uprooted tree? This is how
fragile and high tensions our between the border of Israel and Lebanon. At any moment, an event
like this can happen between the two contentious states. The rest of the country is akin to that of
an earthquake. Everything is fine for the cosmopolitan hub of the Middle East and then suddenly
the city is tense and under siege. Soldiers suddenly become visible and the whole country is on
high alert. To make matters worse, the instability of the Lebanese government and the everincreasing presence of Hezbollah are changing the rules in Lebanon. On August 3, 2010, Israeli
officers crossed the Lebanese border to uproot a tree that was blocking Israeli view of a
Lebanese village, and from this incident four soldiers died one of them being Israeli and the rest
Lebanese.1 The international communities, such as the UN and EU reacted swiftly gaining
attention to the matter because they were extremely concerned that an incident like this could
escalate into further violence. Today, this insecure tension is fueled between the competing
interests of Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Israel. To put it succinctly, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador
to the UN, said that, “Syria, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah are undermining Lebanon’s
independence and are endangering its stability.”2 At a local level in Lebanon, the tensions
mounting between the various political/religious factions, Christians, Sunni, Shi’a, Hezbollah
1
News, Davies BBC. "BBC News - Israel-Lebanon Border Clash Kills Five People." BBC - Homepage. 3 Aug.
2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10851692>.
2
Henneberger, Melinda. "U.S.: Syria, Iran ,Hezbollah Endangering Lebanon Stability." Ya Libnan | World News
Live from Lebanon. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/10/28/u-s-syriairan-hezbollah-endangering-lebanon-stability/>.
1
and Druze, create daily problems for their country. On an international level, add up competing
interests of other countries in Lebanon’s fate and thus the puzzle. The citizens of Lebanon need
help the most from the United States, a fellow democratic state, who holds their support of $100
million to give them aid of weapons, equipment and training to the Lebanese Armed Forces
(LAP).3 The United States support is hindered by the complicated myriad of problems that
Lebanon suffers. Among these challenges that face them and United States support: the scope of
influence of foreign actors such as Syria and Iran, unresolved territorial disputes, Hezbollah’s
increasing strength in the area and the declining strength of the Lebanese Armed forces.
Bombings, assassinations and threats are nothing new to Lebanon, but recently the
action of the United States to withdraw aid from Lebanese Armed Forces is new. Historically,
the U.S. and Lebanon have always maintained close ties to help preserve independence,
sovereignty national unity and territorial integrity. Furthermore, the U.S. should be sustaining the
only democracy in the Middle East. In order to fully understand this quandary, it is essential to
start with the historical relationship between the U.S. and Lebanon to fully appreciate the
progressive relationship with the U.S.
“Days of Old” - The Mandate Period
At the end of World War I, the Allied forces4 put Lebanon under French military
occupation. The French set up Greater Lebanon5 with its present boundaries and with
Beirut as its capital. The Allied Forces drafted a constitution that provided a unicameral
parliament called the Chamber of Deputies, a president and a Council of Ministers or
3
Goodenough, Patrick. "Obama Administration Plans to Review U.S. Military Aid to Lebanon | CNSnews.com."
CNS News | CNSnews.com. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71050>.
4 Allied Forces of WWII: UK, France, Belgium, U.S Russia, Japan, Portugal, etc.
5 See Appendix 1 for map of Lebanon under French occupation
2
cabinet. The president was selected every six years and could not be reelected until a sixyear period had elapsed.
In 1923, The League of Nations formally gave Lebanon and Syria to France. The
Maronite Christians, who were pro-French, applauded this decision and for the next twenty
years under French Control, they were the favored political group. However, under the
French constitution, the French high commissioner still exercised supreme power, which in
turn brought much disagreement from the Lebanese nationalists.
The French helped Lebanon in many forms. For instance, education, public utilities
and communication improved. As well, Beirut prospered as a trade center and the middle
class began to grow. Under this surge of growth, a desire for more independence grew as
well. In the heat of World War II, France was having many problems, including being
occupied by the Germans. The French allowed for elections to still take place in Lebanon in
1943 and under the new president the government adopted changes to do away with
French influence. As expected the French objected and arrested almost the entire Lebanese
government. As war broke out, the British intervened and help the French restore power.
The redefinition of Lebanon changed the demographic substantially. Now Muslims
and Christians were equally divided and many of the residents did not want to be under the
rule of the French or independent. They wanted to be part of a larger Syrian or Arab
country. As stated in the French version of the constitution, the president would normally
be a Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of the chamber a Shiite
Muslim, this was done in order to ease religious tensions and to keep a balance of power.
3
The Phalange party6 emerged which proved to be least associated with either of the main
parties, and Pierre Gemayel7 assumed leadership. The party stressed the overlying issue
facing Lebanon was the “two sister states, Lebanon and Syria,” while at the same time
“emphasizing that in order to preserve Lebanon’s independence that all of Lebanon must
come together.”8 The Phalange party agreed with the French on the idea of a Lebanese
state, but criticized the French authority on the issues of the ruling elite.
When World War II began to reach its climax in 1945, British and French troops
began to withdrawal from Lebanon. Troops started to leave due to the rise of protests in
response to the slow pace of French withdrawal. By 1946, the withdrawal of troops was
complete and Lebanon was officially independent.9 Although the French were very
influential in shaping Lebanese society, the French had officially pulled out.
1958: Lebanese Civil War and U.S. Steps In
Lebanese Muslims who wanted to make Lebanon a new member of the United Arab
Republic started the Lebanese civil war of 1958. Inspired by the unification of Egypt and
Syria, Pro-Nasser demonstrations10 were in full effect in Lebanon and escalated to rebellion
and violence. After the assassination of a Maronite editor for his outspoken pan Arabism of
the newspaper At Talagraph, Nassib Matni, the conflict became a religious battle between
See Political Parties Appendix 4
Pierre Gemayel – 1936 founded Phalange party and became leader. Part of the very prominent Christian
political Gemayel Family
8 Solh, Raghid El-. Lebanon and Arabism National Identity and State Formation. London: I. B. Tauris in
Association with the Centre for Lebanese Studies, 2004. 40-43. Print.
9 Ghazi, Ayman. "Lebanon's History." Ghazi Lebanon. 30 Sept. 1997. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.ghazi.de/french.html>.
6
7
10
These demonstrations were in response to Egypt and Syria joining United Arab Republic. Muslims in
Lebanon felt that Lebanon should do the same
4
Christians and Muslims. Furthermore, Christians did not want to be part of the United Arab
Republic, but instead wanted to be aligned with pro-western viewpoint. Tensions increased
after the monarchy of Iraq was overthrown and word of the Lebanese government would
soon be overthrown as well.
After much rebellion of the Lebanese government by Muslim followers and leaders,
President Chamoun, a Maronite Christian and pro-Western policies, called upon the
western powers and the UN for help. Many of the Arabs that had flooded into Lebanon from
Palestine and Israel were upset at the western powers for recognizing Israel as a state and
they believed that Muslim religious leaders instead of elected representatives should rule
Lebanon. Although the UN sent in a group of inspectors to see if there was any significant
influence from the Arab Republic states, they found no evidence linking anything to the
Arab states. President Chamoun reached out to the United States at this point to help
protect an ally and to stop the overthrow of its democratically elected government, and
thus started the relationship with the U.S.
After much deliberation with his national security staff, Secretary of State, CIA
director and the military chiefs, President Eisenhower responded by authorizing Operation
Blue Bat and sent 15,000 troops in support. Under the Eisenhower Doctrine and along with
the Truman Doctrine, the “U.S. pledged to defend any region from any country controlled
by international communism and support free peoples resisting foreign aggression.”11
Although the U.S. recognized the grave consequences, Eisenhower wanted to strengthen
the relationship of the US and Lebanon, while at the same time bolstering a pro-Western
11
"The Eisenhower Doctrine - Doctrines." Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Doctrines-Theeisenhowerdoctrine.html#ixzz14Yr2bB6T>.
5
Lebanese government. The presence of the U.S. military was limited to protecting the city of
Beirut, where most Americans were, after Eisenhower rejected the recommendations from
his military advisors for a larger scale operation. Eisenhower defended his decision in
saying, “If the Lebanese army were unable to subdue the rebels when we had secured their
capital and protected their government, I felt, we were backing up a government with so
little popular support that we probably should not be there.”12 Fortunately, they were able
to stop the opposition and the U.S. troops were able to withdrawal 3 months later. Also, the
U.S. played a significant role in persuading President Chamoun to resign and he helped with
the selection of a moderate Christian general who would be against internal opposition and
threats from Syria and Egypt.13
1975: Lebanese Civil War AGAIN…and the US Steps In
The Lebanese Civil War resumed in 1975 and tensions were extremely high because
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, in order to drive out the guerillas of the Palestine
Liberation Organization. As Israelis besieged Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, U.S.
ambassador, Philip Habib and President Ronald Reagan, negotiated a treaty to end the
fighting and have the evacuation of Syrian troops and Palestinian fighters from Beirut.
Although the U.S. supported the Israelis, they worked to make sure that the Palestinians left
Lebanon peacefully. The UN Security Council intervened and came up with a resolution 425
that called for,
12
"EMC - Eisenhower Stories - First Lebanon Crisis." Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/First-Lebanon-Crisis.htm>.
13
"The Eisenhower Doctrine - Doctrines." Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Doctrines-The-eisenhowerdoctrine.html#ixzz14Yr2bB6T>.
6
“strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence
of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries and called upon Israel
immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and
withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory.”14
Israel claimed their invasion of Lebanon was due to the attempted assassination of the
Israeli ambassador in London and the build up of Palestinian armaments in South Lebanon.
The Lebanese government and the U.S. agreed on what is known as the
Multinational Force, which was made up of 800 U.S. marines to help provide assistance to
the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) as they carry out responsibilities for a safe evacuation of
the Palestinian troops and to help restore the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese
government.15 However, today, Hezbollah is considered a legitimate resistance force all
over the Arab and Muslim worlds and renders the LAF ineffective.
The Multinational Force soon became a disaster when the U.S. marines became
targets for terrorist attacks in 1983 killing almost 241 marines. After these attacks
happened on American forces, much heat was felt back in Washington and President
Reagan decided to withdraw U.S. troops immediately stating, “the act of unparalleled
cowardice that took their lives, was an attack on all of us, on our way of life and on the
values that we hold dear.”16 One reason why the U.S. became involved is because they
realized that third world countries tend to be more susceptible as victims of terrorism by
powerless organizations that try to advance their political gains. Terrorism continued to
happen after the U.S. marines were deployed with attacks on airplanes, ships, and even the
14
UN Resolution 425. Middle East Historic Documents. Web. 25 Nov. 2010 http://www.mideastweb.org/425.htm
"SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR END TO HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH, ISRAEL,
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1701 (2006)." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your
World. 11 Aug. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm>.
16 Cannon, Lou. President Reagan the Role of a Lifetime. New York: PublicAffairs, 2000. 360-61. Print.
15
7
seizing of American and European hostages. Parallel to today, many western powers were
and are now alarmed by terrorism and it showed how difficult it was to identify or control
terrorism.17
The West Rides In: The United Nations
The United Nations has been heavily involved in Lebanon. Whether Lebanon or the
rest of the international community calls them for help, the UN has initiated some useful
resolutions over the past 10 years.
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri18 has been at the helm of five governments in Lebanon
since 1992 and was the power behind the Taif Agreement, which ended the Lebanese war
and drafted a new constitution. After the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri by
supposed Syrian extremists, the UN Security Council voted upon resolution 1595 in July
2005.19 This resolution established an International Independent Investigation
Commission (UNIIIC) in Lebanon and it was there “to assist the Lebanese authorities in
their investigation of all aspects of the terrorist activity, including help in identifying its
perpetrators, sponsors, organizers and accomplices. This called upon the help of the Syrian
government to comply with the investigation. Due to the political instability in Lebanon
there was much delay of the resolution so the Lebanese government asked the Security
Council to establish the court as a matter of urgency. Even the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon,
17
"Foreign Relations - Ronald Reagan - Policy, War, Domestic, Second." Presidents: A Reference History. Web. 20
Nov. 2010. <http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Ronald-Reagan-Foreignrelations.html#ixzz14YuaIZQj>.
18 "Prime Minister Rafic Hariri - News." Prime Minister Rafic Hariri - The Official Web Site. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.rhariri.com/general.aspx?pagecontent=biography>.
19 "Lebanon." U.S. Department of State. 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm>.
8
Jeffrey Feltman, flew to Lebanon to remember Prime Minister Hariri and “demanded the
truth behind the Prime Minister’s murder and bringing to justice those who attempted to
silence Lebanese voices calling for sovereignty and independence.”20
The next month, in a divided vote, the UN Security Council voted 10 to 0 with 5
abstentions (Russia, China, South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar), to adopt resolution 1757
“which established a tribunal outside of Lebanon to prosecute persons responsible for the
attack against Hariri.”21 Opponents claimed that it violated other UN resolutions because it
allowed the use of force and it meddled in Lebanese internal affairs. The leader of
Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, denounced the investigations “as a tool of Israel and the
United States to indict members of Hezbollah.”22 Lebanon agreed to pay for 49% of the cost
of the tribunal and the US donated $14 million for the tribunal.
On August 11, 2006, the UN adopted security resolution 1701 in reaction to the war
against Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon. The resolution is aimed toward ending violence
and to address the issues that gave rise to this crisis. In the resolution, the UN stated,
“Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and
security,” and it “called for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the
immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all
20
Feltman, Jeffrey. "Ambassador Feltman Remembers Rafik Hariri (Feb. 12, 2007) - U.S. Embassy Beirut,
Lebanon." U.S. Embassy Beirut, Lebanon - Home. 12 Feb. 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2010.
<http://lebanon.usembassy.gov/speeches2006/statementamb021207.html>.
21 SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR END TO HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH, ISRAEL,
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1701 (2006)." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. 11
Aug. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm>.
22 Worth, Robert F. "Don't Aid Hariri Tribunal, Hezbollah Warns." New York Times. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 25 Nov.
2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/world/middleeast/29lebanon.html>.
9
offensive military operations.”23
The international community feels very strongly on this resolution in part because many
are nervous with how deeply entrenched Hezbollah is within the Lebanese Shiite society and it
has been a constant struggle trying to manage this militia wing, but international communities
are also on edge about the increasing power of Iran in Lebanon. On the day this resolution was
ratified, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, said that they would honor this new rule and would
stop firing rockets and soon as the Israeli army did.24 The international community continues
to call for the disarming of all Lebanon militia groups as outlined by 1701 because it has
been violated since it was enacted. The Lebanese government has received much
displeasure from the international community for not taking active steps in making sure
that Hezbollah is disarmed. Beirut’s long-standing position on Hezbollah’s national
resistance status had, over the years, been constantly supported and defended against
international pressures of various sorts. Consequently, Beirut will continue to reject
demands by the United Nations, the U.S, Israel and any other countries to withdraw the
fundamentalist fighters so that stability can return to that region. Hezbollah is still
supported in Lebanon because of the many followers they have and political power in
Lebanon.
The Party of God
23 23 SECURITY
COUNCIL CALLS FOR END TO HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH, ISRAEL,
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1701 (2006)." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. 11
Aug. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm>.
24 Eran, Oded. "UN Resolution 1701: A View from Israel." The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 20 Oct.
2008. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2939>.
10
Hezbollah or “The Party of God” in Lebanon has many labels: terrorist organization,
political party, militia, Islamic Resistance organization, social services organization or a
combination of several. This multifaceted organization formed in 1982 after the Israeli invasion
of Lebanon and has gained notoriety through its history for its growing role in Lebanon and its
ongoing confrontations with Israel.25 In addition, its ties to Syria and Iran have elevated this
‘party’ into a key player in the geopolitics of the Middle East. As both a social and military
organization, Hezbollah has evolved from its formation as a revolutionary Shi’a Islamic party
into a prominent Lebanese political party and a resistance movement. As Hezbollah has grown
so have its identities, in one aspect the party was founded on, and adheres to, a Shi’a Islamic
ideology, which is crucial to its social and military foundation. At the same time, it is an active
and growing Lebanese political party and sees itself as a national resistance movement. By
utilizing these two identities, the “Party of God” Shi’a foundation and the “Party of Lebanon”
national entity, Hezbollah has been successful in broadening its influence and authority.
However, these two identities and their associations, foundations and goals are often
incompatible with each other. The party has constantly evolved and adapted to the status quo by
altering, reconciling, and utilizing aspects of its two contradictory identities in order to maximize
its authority, gain influence, and achieve its immediate and long-term goals. The significance of
Hezbollah and its actions are crucial factors in shaping the future of the Lebanese state and the
geopolitics of the region and the inherent global implications.
The greatest obstacle for the U.S. is the existence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. With the
backing of Syria and Iran, their acts against U.S. personnel and securities, and their commitment
25
Kaplan, Eben. "Hezbollah (a.k.a. Hizbollah, Hizbu'llah)." Council on Foreign Relations. 15 July 2010. Web. 25
Nov. 2010. <http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah_aka_hizbollah_hizbullah.html>.
11
to eliminate Israel all raise alerts in the eyes of the U.S. and the international community.
Furthermore, Hezbollah wants to make Lebanon a militant Muslim state, instead of a democracy.
While Hezbollah in Lebanon is focused more around nationalism and not revolutions like
Iran/Syria, many still fear that these outside actors heavily influence them. Hezbollah, Syria and
Iran have found their relationship to be beneficial and in turn Hezbollah receives much funding
(monetary and weapons) from them, not only for hard power tools, but also to rebuild all
Hezbollah territory.26 The fact that this work was undertaken by a political party and financed by
a foreign country, Iran, rather than by the governments, Public Works Ministry certainly removes
all doubt about the state’s capacity or desire to undercut the Party of God’s services in order to
reduce its political appeal. If it were not for Hezbollah’s cooperation in providing these basic
utilities for the crowded suburbs, the government would have faced great social disorder and
disruption.
One main issue that Israel is concerned with is that Hezbollah receives arms through
unsecured Lebanese borders and they are skeptical of Hezbollah’s involvement in the Lebanese
government. As well, many are suspicious of the relationship between Hezbollah and Lebanese
Armed Forces (LAF). This is a main concern for the U.S. because most of their aid is weaponry
and other military equipment for the LAF. If the role of Hezbollah and the LAF continues to
grow and cooperate, the US aid to Lebanon will suffer many constraints and could be
nonexistent.
In 2008, Hezbollah gained much political power in Lebanese parliament by gaining
eleven of the thirty cabinet seats, giving them a veto power. However, in June 2009 in the new
26
Cordesman, Anthony. "The Arab-Israeli Military Balance 2010." Center for Strategic and International Studies.
29 June 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://csis.org/publication/arab-israeli-military-balance-2010>.
12
parliamentary elections, Hezbollah lost to Lebanon’s pro Western party, causing a reduction in
their cabinet seats leaving them with only two and 13 out of the 128-member parliament.
Although the reduction of their seats was significant, it did not diminish their power.27 In
December of 2009, the Lebanese Parliament granted Hezbollah their ability to retain their arsenal
of weapons in Lebanon, even though this violates the UN resolution 1701 calling for the
disarmament of all Lebanese militias. One scholar Magnus Norell from the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy wrote that Hezbollah was “strong enough to drag the country of Lebanon
into war against the will of the sovereign government.”28
Hezbollah can wield this power mostly because of its enduring ideology that is constantly
transmitted through its followers and through its newspaper (Hezbollah) and its broadcasting
network (Al-Manar). Furthermore, Hezbollah doesn’t want to force their religion on Lebanese
citizens, they want Lebanese citizens to believe in their ideology and want to be a part of it. The
breadth and scope of this new technology allows Hezbollah to transmit its messages and
terrorists acts, as donned by the U.S, across borders. Hezbollah’s reach exceeds not only Lebanon
and the Middle East, but has the potential to disrupt the efforts of the US around the world, if
their power increases. Their propaganda is determined to shift the hearts and minds of all people
and they use these kinds of techniques to vehemently oppose other countries policies.
“This is Syrious” – Syrian and Lebanon Relations
27
Kaplan, Eben. "Hezbollah (a.k.a. Hizbollah, Hizbu'llah)." Council on Foreign Relations. 15
July 2010. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah_aka_hizbollah_hizbullah.html>.
28
"SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR END TO HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH, ISRAEL,
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1701 (2006)." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. 11
Aug. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm>.
13
Many would claim that the emergence and intervention of Syria is one of the
greatest problems that face Lebanon’s independence and stability. There is a persistent
fear that Syria wants to return its military forces back into Lebanon. Until recently, Syria
never formally recognized Lebanon as a state, but always looked at it as an appendage of
the greater Syrian state. Furthermore, while Iran and Syria seem to be dictating and
facilitating the works of Hezbollah, Syria has always had a competitive relationship with
Iran that has forced Syria to be even more resolute in making Lebanon a Syrian satellite.
Not only is Lebanon a buffer state between Syria and Israel, but also the Lebanese economy
is heavily influence by pro-Syrian business interests. Syria became known as a disturbing
actor during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon because they were
accused of supplying arsenal and weapons to Hezbollah from their Iran ally, which is in
violation of UN resolution 1701.
Due to the help of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, he was successful at
getting Michel Suleimann, the Lebanese president, and Bashar al Asad, the Syrian president,
to establish formal diplomatic ties and construct embassy’s in both of their countries; this
was the first time that both countries had establish diplomatic ties since their
independence which was over 60 years ago. This is an important diplomatic move because
it enhances the importance of engagement. As historian Judith Harik mentioned, “Syria
regards Lebanon as both a problem and a strategic asset,” but many are skeptical of the
relationship and fear that it is a front to interfere in Lebanon’s domestic politics.29
Furthermore, some criticize the relationship Syria has with the U.S. and the impact that it
puts on Lebanon. The relationship between the U.S. and Syria undermines the U.S. support
29
Harik, Judith. "AUB - Syrian Foreign Policy and State/Resistance Dynamics in Lebanon." Digital Documentation
Center - AUB. Web. 25 Nov. 2010. <http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/judith-harik.html>.
14
for an independent Lebanon because Lebanon is only being used as a buffer between Syria
and Israel to maintain peace.30 Recently, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the UN, singled out
Syria and claimed that they “provide increasingly sophisticated weapons to militia groups,
including Hezbollah.”31 However, to posit an alternate idea, if Syria is so influential to
Hezbollah it might be in the best interest of the United States to engage and negotiate an
accord with Syria.
Show Me The Money: US Aid to Lebanon
Since the end of 1990, the U.S. has been a strong supporter of arms to Lebanon and
the LAF. Much of the international community as well as the U.S. are concerned that
weapons provided by the U.S. to LAF may be used one day against one of the U.S. great
allies, Israel, especially if they fell into the hands of Hezbollah. Many are concerned that the
LAF leadership is not strong enough and will fall weary to the demands of Hezbollah.
Furthermore, there are concerns that the U.S. support of the LAF has made them a target
for attacks from other extremist organizations. According to other critics, assistance from
the U.S. is too slow and it is only coming in small increments at a time and Lebanon needs
immediate assistance. The procedure in the US is very slow often taking up to three or four
years to carry out their promises.32
30
Addis, Casey L. "U.S. Security Assistance to Lebanon." Congressional Research Service. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 20
Nov. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40485.pdf>.
31 Harik, Judith. "AUB - Syrian Foreign Policy and State/Resistance Dynamics in Lebanon." Digital Documentation
Center - AUB. Web. 25 Nov. 2010. <http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/judith-harik.html>.
32
Addis, Casey L. "Lebanon: Background and U.S. Relations." Congressional Research Service. 3 Aug. 2010. Web.
20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40054.pdf>.
15
While the U.S. has been criticized, their aid has been constant until now. In the last
ten years, the United States has devoted many financial and military resources to Lebanon.
On May 25, 2007, Congress passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, which
provided over $580 million in security and economic assistance to support Lebanese
recovery and to strengthen their security forces. Of the $580 million, $60 million was
pledged to non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, DE-mining and other security efforts. As well,
the U.S. gave an additional $184 million for the International Peacekeeping Activities.33
During the Bush administration, U.S. provided immediate money to Lebanon for
rebuilding efforts. On August 21, 2006, the U.S. provided $230 million to Lebanon. A year
later in 2007, Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, pledged an additional $250 million on
behalf of the US for Lebanon to help their crippling economy and debt. In 2008, David Hale,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, said Lebanon “had suffered a great deal from foreign
intervention and bad weapons in the past and the U.S. wanted to move on to the next phase
and supply Lebanon with equipment that was more effective and met their needs.” Israel, a
close Middle East ally of the U.S, publically disapproved of this gift from the U.S. and
claimed that it may end up in the hands of Hezbollah.
Should we STAY or Should we GO:
The U.S. foreign policy to Lebanon has remained unchanged since its independence.
There are two main objectives to relations with Lebanon. The first is to maintain the peace
along the border between Israel and Lebanon, and the second objective is to maintain the
33
Same as 32
16
relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia to compete with Iran and Syria. It would be worth
the U.S. government’s time to research if Saudi Arabia has any control over Syria or Iran.
Some have argued that Lebanon is of little strategic value to the United States. While
the U.S. has historically enjoyed a close relationship with Lebanon due to its close religious,
cultural and political ties many argue that Lebanon does not have much to offer as other
Middle East states do. The opponents state that Lebanon has no U.S. military bases, oil
fields, international waterways, military or industrial strength or major trading ties with
the U.S. However, all of these criticisms deal only with the national interest of the U.S. The
United States was founded on the ideals that allow democracy to be the most important
way to govern a country. Given this, it is time for the U.S. to start sustaining its democracies
all over the world.
On the other hand, some mention how Lebanon has a strategic location as a buffer
between Syria and Israel, their large Palestinian refugee population and its close
connection with the rest of the Arab world could be beneficial for the U.S. While Lebanon
many not serve as a national interest for the U.S, it could be a valuable puzzle piece for the
Middle East. Instead of regime change in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, which take
centuries to build, the U.S. should work on sustaining its democracies that it has always
supported. If the tri-alliance (Hezbollah, Syria and Iran) become stronger and Lebanon
ends up being overtaken and becomes an Islamic state, Israel will be surrounded by all
competitors, which could end up bringing even more trouble to the Middle East.
The way the U.S. responds to Lebanon is a perplexing situation. Normally, the US has
supported Lebanon to promote democracy and stable their economy and security
17
assistance. Many wonder if the U.S. position in Lebanon is directed solely at peace between
Syria and Israel. For example, if the Lebanese parliament were to be controlled by a proSyrian group, the continued U.S. support would drop drastically. Overall, events ultimately
determine how the U.S. will take their course of action in Lebanon.34 As Iran looms over the
international world with the creation of its nuclear program, the consequence of this is the
possibility of losing Lebanon as a democracy in the Middle East.
Recent Events
After parliament elections in November 2009, the pro-Western government of
Lebanon prevailed. Although this was a great victory for the party, they are still entrenched
with the daily troubles that are influenced by outside actors as well as the internal political
tension. The U.S. involvement is focused around maintaining security and peace, especially
along the border with Israel and to contain activity from Iran.
In May 2010, Lebanon abstained from the voting of sanctions on Iran. With the
growing support of Hezbollah and the uneasy situation Lebanon is placed in, it was smart
to abstain from voting on Iran. According to Nawwaf Salam, Lebanese Ambassador to the
UN, “Lebanon encourages a peaceful solution to the crisis with Iran and we refuse to
imagine a failure to diplomacy. If the current diplomatic efforts fail, our response will be a
call for more diplomatic efforts.” Shortly after the sanctions of Iran were voted on,
34
Addis, Casey L. "Lebanon: Background and U.S. Relations." Congressional Research Service. 3 Aug. 2010. Web.
20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40054.pdf>.
18
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran visited Lebanon in October.35 This two-day tour
was to bring about stronger ties with Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. After such a
warm welcome brought by Lebanon, the U.S. decided to halt its aid of $100 million to
Lebanon. From the perspective of the U.S, if the majority of the Lebanese support
Hezbollah, it could be a waste of U.S. aid and weapons to a country who could end up using
them against us. The main people who are against the aid to Lebanon are House Foreign
Affairs Committee Chairman, Howard Berman and Nita Lowey. They expressed concern
from the August 3rd border incident and feel that there must be a better way to contribute
to and stabilize Lebanon. 36Congresswoman Nita Lowey from the 18th district in New York
and Chairwoman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee responded to the
Middle East crisis in saying, “the UN and the international community need to unite to
demand an end to this reign of terror and full implementation of UN Security Council
Resolution 1559 and Lebanon must establish sovereignty over its own territory instead of
allowing Hezbollah to operate freely.”37 As well, Congressman Howard Berman,
representing the 28th district from California and Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, said “I have been concerned for sometime about reported Hezbollah influence
35
Khoury, Jack. "U.S. Lawmakers: Lebanon's Embrace of Ahmadinejad May Affect Military Aid - Haaretz Daily
Newspaper | Israel News." Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-lawmakers-lebanon-s-embrace-of-ahmadinejadmay-affect-military-aid-1.319034>.
36
Addis, Casey L. "U.S. Security Assistance to Lebanon." Congressional Research Service. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 20
Nov. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40485.pdf>.
37
"Congresswoman Nita Lowey : Press Releases : Statement of Congresswoman Lowey on Current Middle East
Hostilities." Congresswoman Nita Lowey : Home. 25 July 2006. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.
<http://lowey.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=18&parentid=17&sectiontree=17,18&itemid=177>.
19
on the Lebanese Armed Forces and its implications for our military assistance program to
Lebanon.”38
Many opponents all over the world have vehemently opposed the recent trip of
President Ahmadinejad to Lebanon and even prompted Israeli government official Mark
Regev to argue that, “Iran’s domination of Lebanon through its proxy Hezbollah has
destroyed any chance for peace, has turned Lebanon into an Iranian satellite and made
Lebanon a hub for regional terror and instability.” Even the U.S. administration slammed
Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon and Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, said, “We reject
any efforts to destabilize or inflame issues with Lebanon and we hope that no visitor would
doing anything that would cause greater tension or instability in the country.”39 The cutoff
of American aid may force Lebanon further into Iran’s sphere of influence and deter U.S.
commitment to ensure Lebanese sovereignty and authority over its territory
After the U.S. announced that it would freeze its aid of $100 million to Lebanon, Iran
and Lebanon announced that they signed 16 agreements for cooperation on energy and
finance during the visit, but none were made for military aid. The speed at which Iran
offered support after the U.S. pulled their support presents the dangers from the U.S.
withdrawing from its continued support to LAF. If the U.S. continues to support the LAF
then they will be able halt further problems from neighboring countries. With the everincreasing popularity of Hezbollah and the presence of Iran relations, the U.S. must act
38
United States House of Representatives: Committee on Foreign Relations. 9 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.
<Addis, Casey L. "U.S. Security Assistance to Lebanon." Congressional Research Service. 1 Sept. 2010.
Web. 20 Nov. 2010. .>.
39
Keinon, Herb. "J'lem: Ahmadinejad in Lebanon Is like a ‘landlord's Visit'" The Jerusalem Post. 31 Oct. 2010.
Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=191288>.
20
quickly to determine what their relationship is with the LAF and Lebanon, before the U.S.
ruins this opportunity to help a struggling democratic country. As President Obama stated
on Lebanon’s independence day, “Washington is committed to preserving Lebanon’s
sovereignty, independence, national and cultural identity.”40
40
"Obama Backs Lebanese Sovereignty, Independence." The Daily Star: Lebanon. 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 25 Nov.
2010.
<http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=121795#axzz16Qug6cYz>.
21
Appendix 1: French Occupation in 1920’s
Appendix 2: Religious Division in 1970’s
22
Appendix 3: Map of Lebanon Today
23
Appendix 4: Main Political Parties today in Lebanon
A member of the Lebanese Christian party once said, “Everyone knows the work is politically
motivated but it also shows what faith can do.” This quote exemplifies the ping-pong effect of
how conflicting ideologies have tried to control Lebanon. In short, the Phalange party has been
one of the reigning political parties since 1936. The history of these groups has demonstrated
their contentious history. Currently, there are at least eighteen religious-based political parties in
Lebanon today. These many political, religious groups affect much of the political scene and the
social organization of Lebanon. The main Christian groups are pro-West, want an independent
Lebanon and oppose the appeals of Islam and pan-Arabism. The Muslim Groups want closer ties
with Arab states. The main Christian parties are the National Liberal Party and the Phalangist
party, while other main parties include the Progressive Socialist Party, the Amal Party and
Hezbollah.
Phalange Party, which started in 1936, has always called for independence and was
closely related with the French. Over the years, the party has been closely related to the West in
general. The party embraces the need to modernize, but also wants to preserve the sectarian
status quo, of keeping a Lebanese nation distinct form its Muslim neighbors.
Amal Party, which was established in 1975 and is the dominant Shia party. The party
stresses resistance to Israel and they are pro-Syrian. Their platform calls for national unity and
equality among all citizens. They do not have many close ties to Iran as well it has been difficult
for them to unite under one single position which has led to an uncooperative group.
The National Liberal Party was founded in 1958 under the platform of social reform
and progressive change and one of the main Christian parties. Although they have many shared
views with the Phalange Party, they do not have the organizational efficiency.
The Progressive Socialist Party is led and supported mostly by people of the Druze
faith. Founded in 1949 it advocates for a constitutional road to socialism and democracy. Their
mission is to build a society where social security, equality, welfare, peace and freedom prevail
and human rights are protected.
24
Appendix 5: Notable Actors
United States Actors:
Hillary Clinton – Current U.S. Secretary of State
Susan Rice – Current US Ambassador to the UN (2009-Present)
Howard Berman – Current U.S. Congressman for California’s 28th District
Nita Lowey – Current U.S. Congresswoman for New York’s 18th District
David Hale – U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Condoleezza Rice – U.S. Secretary of State (2005-2009)
Philip Habib – US State Department Special Envoy to the Middle East (1981-83) and US
Ambassador to South Korea (1971-74)
Ronald Reagan – President of the United States (1980-1989)
Dwight D Eisenhower – President of the United States (1953-1961)
Lebanon Actors:
Nawwaf Salam – Current Lebanese Ambassador to the UN
Rafik Hariri – Prime Minister of Lebanon (1992-1998) and (2000-2004)
Camille Chamoun – President of Lebanon (1952-1958)
International Actors:
Hassan Nasrallah – Current leader of Hezbollah
Nicolas Sarkozy – Current President of France (2007 – Present)
Michel Suleimann – Current President of Lebanon (2008 – Present)
Bashar al Asad – Current President of Syria (2000 – Present)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – Current President of Iran
Mark Regev – Israeli Diplomat and current spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel
25
Lebanon: The Puzzle Piece to the crisis in the Middle East
Case Discussion Questions
1. How would you describe the situation in Lebanon?
2. What role do you think the US should take in their relationship with Lebanon? Are
they going in the right direction?
3. How do you see Hezbollah’s future in Lebanon and why are they still in Lebanon?
4. What do you believe is the future for Lebanon?
5. How role does Iran, Syria and Israel play?
6. Does the United Nations seem to be helping the situation? What is said about
international law?
26
Works Cited:
Addis, Casey L. "Lebanon: Background and U.S. Relations." Congressional Research Service. 3
Aug. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40054.pdf>.
Addis, Casey L. "U.S. Security Assistance to Lebanon." Congressional Research Service. 1 Sept.
2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40485.pdf>.
Cannon, Lou. President Reagan the Role of a Lifetime. New York: PublicAffairs, 2000. 360-61.
Print.
"Congresswoman Nita Lowey : Press Releases : Statement of Congresswoman Lowey on
Current Middle East Hostilities." Congresswoman Nita Lowey : Home. 25 July 2006.
Web. 22 Nov. 2010.
<http://lowey.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=18&parentid=17&sectiontree=17,18&item
id=177>.
Cordesman, Anthony. "The Arab-Israeli Military Balance 2010." Center for Strategic and
International Studies. 29 June 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://csis.org/publication/arab-israeli-military-balance-2010>.
"The Eisenhower Doctrine - Doctrines." Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Web. 20
Nov. 2010. <http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Doctrines-The-eisenhowerdoctrine.html#ixzz14Yr2bB6T>.
"EMC - Eisenhower Stories - First Lebanon Crisis." Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Web.
25 Nov. 2010. <http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/First-Lebanon-Crisis.htm>.
Eran, Oded. "UN Resolution 1701: A View from Israel." The Washington Institute for Near East
Policy. 20 Oct. 2008. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2939>.
Feltman, Jeffrey. "Ambassador Feltman Remembers Rafik Hariri (Feb. 12, 2007) - U.S.
Embassy Beirut, Lebanon." U.S. Embassy Beirut, Lebanon - Home. 12 Feb. 2007. Web.
01 Dec. 2010. <http://lebanon.usembassy.gov/speeches2006/statementamb021207.html>.
"Foreign Relations - Ronald Reagan - Policy, War, Domestic, Second." Presidents: A Reference
History. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/RonaldReagan-Foreign-relations.html#ixzz14YuaIZQj>.
Ghazi, Ayman. "Lebanon's History." Ghazi Lebanon. 30 Sept. 1997. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.ghazi.de/french.html>.
Goodenough, Patrick. "Obama Administration Plans to Review U.S. Military Aid to Lebanon |
27
CNSnews.com." CNS News | CNSnews.com. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71050>.
Harik, Judith. "AUB - Syrian Foreign Policy and State/Resistance Dynamics in Lebanon."
Digital Documentation Center - AUB. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
<http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/judith-harik.html>.
Henneberger, Melinda. "U.S.: Syria, Iran ,Hezbollah Endangering Lebanon Stability." Ya Libnan
| World News Live from Lebanon. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/10/28/u-s-syria-iran-hezbollah-endangering-lebanonstability/>.
Kaplan, Eben. "Hezbollah (a.k.a. Hizbollah, Hizbu'llah)." Council on Foreign Relations. 15 July
2010. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah_aka_hizbollah_hizbullah.html>.
Keinon, Herb. "J'lem: Ahmadinejad in Lebanon Is like a ‘landlord's Visit'" The Jerusalem Post.
31 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=191288>.
Khoury, Jack. "U.S. Lawmakers: Lebanon's Embrace of Ahmadinejad May Affect Military Aid Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News." Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. 14
Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-slawmakers-lebanon-s-embrace-of-ahmadinejad-may-affect-military-aid-1.319034>.
"Lebanon." U.S. Department of State. 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm>.
Mark, Clyde R. "Israeli-United States Relations." Almanac of Policy Issues. 17 Oct. 2002. Web.
01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/crs_israelius_relations.shtml>.
News, Davies BBC. "BBC News - Israel-Lebanon Border Clash Kills Five People." BBC Homepage. 3 Aug. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldmiddle-east-10851692>.
"Obama Backs Lebanese Sovereignty, Independence." The Daily Star: Lebanon. 24 Nov. 2010.
Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=121795#
axzz16Qug6cYz>.
"Prime Minister Rafic Hariri - News." Prime Minister Rafic Hariri - The Official Web Site. Web.
25 Nov. 2010. <http://www.rhariri.com/general.aspx?pagecontent=biography>.
"SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR END TO HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH,
ISRAEL, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1701 (2006)." Welcome to the
28
United Nations: It's Your World. 11 Aug. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm>.
Solh, Raghid El-. Lebanon and Arabism National Identity and State Formation. London: I. B.
Tauris in Association with the Centre for Lebanese Studies, 2004. 40-43. Print.
UN Resolution 425. Middle East Historic Documents. Web. 25 Nov. 2010
http://www.mideastweb.org/425.htm
United States House of Representatives: Committee on Foreign Relations. 9 Aug. 2010. Web. 22
Nov. 2010. <Addis, Casey L. "U.S. Security Assistance to Lebanon." Congressional
Research Service. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. .>.
Worth, Robert F. "Don't Aid Hariri Tribunal, Hezbollah Warns." New York Times. 28 Oct. 2010.
Web. 25 Nov. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/world/middleeast/29lebanon.html>.
29